Why Does A Whale Need Fingers?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

MrC: Mike we have plenty of ways to determine whether something is convergent, meaning it has arrived at the same evolutionary solution, and when something is homologous, meaning it is a result of having some shared ancestry. As per your example with whale and bat echolocation, this would be an example of convergent evolution. This can be chemical as well as physical

(Yes, since I know what, "homoplastic" means I'm hardly going to have trouble understanding what "homologous" means am I? Homoplastic is an analogous morphology, such as a wing of a bat and bird but their bones would be homologous. Don't patronise me Chopper, on my worst day I am smarter than you on your best day.) I know and understand evolution more than you, and I have a quiz for any evolutionist that doubts this, which I will be only too pleased to test you with if you patronise me further)

 

What are the "plenty of ways to determine whether something is convergent?" Prove your statement. As far as I can see, you only have one way - that it can't be a homology as it doesn't fit within the divergence-story, so then the answer has to be that it is convergent-evolution, the absurd 100% belief-by-faith proposal that somehow evolution hit the jackpot twice. If it's falsifiable show me how, answer the question - how can I falsify the notion that a bat, whale and oil-bird all "evolved" homoplastic echolocation. You don't have an answer because there simply isn't a way.

 

How can you know the cause is evolution? By showing something that has the same design this means that logically this proves it can have nothing to do with evolution. Look at what you written, "evolutionary solution" LOL! But what makes it, "evolutionary", when we look at echolocation, the correct description is sophisticated intelligent design, according to all of the evidence of the incredible anatomy.

 

Talk about a question-begging-epithet, that is a HOWLER, it is like me saying, "and we can see that the bone has the same Christian solution".

 

Why, "evolutionary" How can I falsify that? Nobody has ever shown even once that evolution can come up with the same solution in two different places, it is nothing more than a belief, considering you haven't shown it can come up with it the first time. It is unfalsifiable flushbunkem just like I said, Sir.

 

Show me how I can falisfy your statement that it was an, "evolutionary solution"? There is absolutely no way to falsify that, at all, and you know it. Otherwise tell me - how could I show that echolocation did not happen by a stroke of astronomical odds whereby evolution hit the nail on the head several times? You say it as though it is 100% proven, or 100% fact - that means you must be able to show me how that is proven - I though there was no proof in science, so then why are you dogmatic about this?

 

 

 

MrC:  ID exists purely a rebuttal to evolutionary theory, and is evidenced only by the failure of evolutionary theory to explain something.

 

Utter nonsense, the argument from design existed before evolution was even invented by Darwin. You could apply the same test to it then as you can now. It is not up for dispute that an eyeball is constructed specifically to see, it always was, and it never had anything to do with evolution.

 

My particular evaluation of design, is totally objective, as to conclude whether something is designed, the only way you can know is by looking at what makes designs, designed. Looking at things we all agree are animated designs like lifeforms. That is the only way to find out. It is deductive, evolution itself doesn't come into the matter and is  extraneous to the logic of the evaluation. 

 

 

 

MrC:. As I've said, ID is completely indistinguishable from "we don't know" in both theory and practice. 

 

You've gave an opinion, I have given a syllogism which pretty much proves that ID is factual in nature, I have explained it several times and you can't show how it is wrong, you also can't show how evolution would not break the law of non-contradiction given the field of biomimetics deductively proves that the intelligent design in nature is superior to our own via Reductio-Ad-Absurdum, a logical proof.

 

Simply repeating your opinions is nothing more than an ad nauseam fallacy, when I have already disproven your claims several times. Now you are just repeating your old opinions because you have less of a chance of refuting me than a 3 legged horse has of winning the grand national.

 

Since we know that you don't even know what a syllogism is, and how it works, can you show us how the following syllogism is wrong please:

 

Every element that makes a human makes a human. (X is X) Law of identity

Bob has all the elements that make a human a human

Therefore Bob is a human.

 

As I have proven, this can be falsified easily, all you have to do is show that the conclusion does not follow and is therefore a non-sequitur, or that the premises are false.

 

Mr C, all of your arguments could be adequately described as rhetorical gibberish, is it my fault you haven't the smarts to know why? At the very least you should have gathered by now that my evaluation of what makes something designed, doesn't actually have ANYTHING to do with evolution, every step of that evaluation is logically provably correct. In each step, to which you cannot refute any of it, you can only offer opinionated gibberish which does not refute my claim. Unfortunately you don't have any proclivity to understand logical reasoning which is why you are unable to see why your objections are inconsequential sophistry.

 

Step one. How can we determine what makes something designed? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be designed, designed. (Mike this is clearly wrong, how can this be true? Lol!!!!)

 

Is step one "true"? Well, let's show an equal logical analogy:

How can we determine what makes a human, human? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be human, human. (human DNA, brain, skin, anatomy....etc) (Mike, this is terribly wrong, and clearly false. LOl!!!!)

 

Thus far, can you see this is having anything to do with evolution-gaps? (Grow a brain mrC! This is 100% objectively logical and has NOTHING to do with your FALSE assertions that it is a gap-filler for evolution)

 

Step 2: If something now has all of the elements we observe a design to has, then logically it's designed.

If something has all the elements of a human , then it's human.

(Mike, how can a person be human if he has all of the elemetns of a human, this is insanity, Mike!) LOL!!

 

MrC, when are you going to learn, you have to prove what you are saying in a debate or provide some backing for your assertions - as you can see by those steps, it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for it to be wrong that the way to determine if something is X, is by it's identity, because that is what makes it X!)

 

Mr C there is no way around the correctness of my syllogism, which is why you had to argue that logic itself must break down. REALITY simply does not show evolution, it shows intelligent design, and you can either accept reality or reject it and believe in a false theory but know this, in the totality of my knowledge I am telling you that all of the reasonings you have provided against my position have not even put a dent in the fender. I say that with all sincerity, you have lost this debate, miserably because you cannot show how it is wrong as to how to decide if something qualified as design. Just admit you can't win, try honesty for a change, just say this; "your syllogism is not breakable Mike, it is clearly correct, and that means that intelligent design is clearly what we see and this doesn't favour evolution and I can see that but I am going to believe by faith in evolution, that somehow evolution done it, even though it doesn't have any intelligence".

 

That would be the only honest thing to say at this stage, it is clear that you can't win this debate.

[Enoch 2021 412]

(Yes, since I know what, "homoplastic" means I'm hardly going to have trouble understanding what "homologous" means am I? Homoplastic is an analogous morphology, such as a wing of a bat and bird but their bones would be homologous. Don't patronise me Chopper, on my worst day I am smarter than you on your best day.) I know and understand evolution more than you, and I have a quiz for any evolutionist that doubts this, which I will be only too pleased to test you with if you patronise me further)

 

What are the "plenty of ways to determine whether something is convergent?" Prove your statement. As far as I can see, you only have one way - that it can't be a homology as it doesn't fit within the divergence-story, so then the answer has to be that it is convergent-evolution, the absurd 100% belief-by-faith proposal that somehow evolution hit the jackpot twice. If it's falsifiable show me how, answer the question - how can I falsify the notion that a bat, whale and oil-bird all "evolved" homoplastic echolocation. You don't have an answer because there simply isn't a way.

 

How can you know the cause is evolution? By showing something that has the same design this means that logically this proves it can have nothing to do with evolution. Look at what you written, "evolutionary solution" LOL! But what makes it, "evolutionary", when we look at echolocation, the correct description is sophisticated intelligent design, according to all of the evidence of the incredible anatomy.

 

Talk about a question-begging-epithet, that is a HOWLER, it is like me saying, "and we can see that the bone has the same Christian solution".

 

Why, "evolutionary" How can I falsify that? Nobody has ever shown even once that evolution can come up with the same solution in two different places, it is nothing more than a belief, considering you haven't shown it can come up with it the first time. It is unfalsifiable flushbunkem just like I said, Sir.

 

Show me how I can falisfy your statement that it was an, "evolutionary solution"? There is absolutely no way to falsify that, at all, and you know it. Otherwise tell me - how could I show that echolocation did not happen by a stroke of astronomical odds whereby evolution hit the nail on the head several times? You say it as though it is 100% proven, or 100% fact - that means you must be able to show me how that is proven - I though there was no proof in science, so then why are you dogmatic about this?

 

 

Utter nonsense, the argument from design existed before evolution was even invented by Darwin. You could apply the same test to it then as you can now. It is not up for dispute that an eyeball is constructed specifically to see, it always was, and it never had anything to do with evolution.

 

My particular evaluation of design, is totally objective, as to conclude whether something is designed, the only way you can know is by looking at what makes designs, designed. Looking at things we all agree are animated designs like lifeforms. That is the only way to find out. It is deductive, evolution itself doesn't come into the matter and is  extraneous to the logic of the evaluation. 

 

 

You've gave an opinion, I have given a syllogism which pretty much proves that ID is factual in nature, I have explained it several times and you can't show how it is wrong, you also can't show how evolution would not break the law of non-contradiction given the field of biomimetics deductively proves that the intelligent design in nature is superior to our own via Reductio-Ad-Absurdum, a logical proof.

 

Simply repeating your opinions is nothing more than an ad nauseam fallacy, when I have already disproven your claims several times. Now you are just repeating your old opinions because you have less of a chance of refuting me than a 3 legged horse has of winning the grand national.

 

Since we know that you don't even know what a syllogism is, and how it works, can you show us how the following syllogism is wrong please:

 

Every element that makes a human makes a human. (X is X) Law of identity

Bob has all the elements that make a human a human

Therefore Bob is a human.

 

As I have proven, this can be falsified easily, all you have to do is show that the conclusion does not follow and is therefore a non-sequitur, or that the premises are false.

 

Mr C, all of your arguments could be adequately described as rhetorical gibberish, is it my fault you haven't the smarts to know why? At the very least you should have gathered by now that my evaluation of what makes something designed, doesn't actually have ANYTHING to do with evolution, every step of that evaluation is logically provably correct. In each step, to which you cannot refute any of it, you can only offer opinionated gibberish which does not refute my claim. Unfortunately you don't have any proclivity to understand logical reasoning which is why you are unable to see why your objections are inconsequential sophistry.

 

Step one. How can we determine what makes something designed? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be designed, designed. (Mike this is clearly wrong, how can this be true? Lol!!!!)

 

Is step one "true"? Well, let's show an equal logical analogy:

How can we determine what makes a human, human? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be human, human. (human DNA, brain, skin, anatomy....etc) (Mike, this is terribly wrong, and clearly false. LOl!!!!)

 

Thus far, can you see this is having anything to do with evolution-gaps? (Grow a brain mrC! This is 100% objectively logical and has NOTHING to do with your FALSE assertions that it is a gap-filler for evolution)

 

Step 2: If something now has all of the elements we observe a design to has, then logically it's designed.

If something has all the elements of a human , then it's human.

(Mike, how can a person be human if he has all of the elemetns of a human, this is insanity, Mike!) LOL!!

 

MrC, when are you going to learn, you have to prove what you are saying in a debate or provide some backing for your assertions - as you can see by those steps, it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for it to be wrong that the way to determine if something is X, is by it's identity, because that is what makes it X!)

 

Mr C there is no way around the correctness of my syllogism, which is why you had to argue that logic itself must break down. REALITY simply does not show evolution, it shows intelligent design, and you can either accept reality or reject it and believe in a false theory but know this, in the totality of my knowledge I am telling you that all of the reasonings you have provided against my position have not even put a dent in the fender. I say that with all sincerity, you have lost this debate, miserably because you cannot show how it is wrong as to how to decide if something qualified as design. Just admit you can't win, try honesty for a change, just say this; "your syllogism is not breakable Mike, it is clearly correct, and that means that intelligent design is clearly what we see and this doesn't favour evolution and I can see that but I am going to believe by faith in evolution, that somehow evolution done it, even though it doesn't have any intelligence".

 

That would be the only honest thing to say at this stage, it is clear that you can't win this debate.

 

Here Here, Bravo Sir!  Enjoyed reading your Offering here.

 

I especially liked...

 

"and we can see that the bone has the same Christian solution".   Very well played.

 

"If it's falsifiable show me how, answer the question - how can I falsify the notion that a bat, whale and oil-bird all "evolved" homoplastic echolocation. You don't have an answer because there simply isn't a way."

 

There is No Way to do it.  Ya know Why??  Because the "Scientific" theory of evolution is UNDEFINED.  That's The Game  

 

If you define it, the Jig Is UP!!! ....The Fairytale Incoherent Fog Shape-Shifter Qualities Evaporate.

 

 

What we got here, and this is so Absolutely Mind Numbing I can't believe I'm actually writing this......BUT, what we got here is: A Scientific Theory that  "purportedly" is the Most VALIDATED FACTUAL Scientific Theory in the History Mankind for ever ever and ever.....and nobody knows what it is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ON PURPOSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then.... they call it "Science".

 

                    

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

Enoch: there is No Way to do it.  Ya know Why??  Because the "Scientific" theory of evolution isUNDEFINED.  That's The Game   

 

If you define it, the Jig Is UP!!! ....The Fairytale Incoherent Fog Shape-Shifter Qualities Evaporate.

 

Thanks Super-Enoch. And that's the head of the nail you just hit!

 

MrC must surely know what we know - nobody could ever, "know" a history of convergence. 

 

Let's imagine a scenario to make this point about unfalsifiability, even more cemented my friend:

 

Imagine God lent me his abilities for the day and I wanted to make some type of flying creature. So I have to go with some type of bones for a frame in the wing, so let's say I go with six or seven "finger" bones just to break the pentadactyl pattern in nature. 

 

So then, if I INSERTED my animal into nature, and an evolutionist FOUND my animal, there is no escaping that it would get tarnished with the evo-brush.

 

If you create something that flies, you simply NEED a wing. There is no better solution. Would the scientist say; "well we better test to see if the wing really was converged upon by evolution?"

 

LOL!!! .....HOW? How would he test? Convergence is a 100% story. They simply, "infer" that evolution came up with the solution more than once in nature.

 

If MrC is logical, he will ADMIT that the designer having ALL of the blueprints, and also knowing what is BEST to equip an animal with, according to His designer-wisdom, would also perfectly fit with the facts. Let's face it, there are no evolutionary, "reasons" as to why a turtle should be homoplastic to a tortoise, except for a DESIRE for a turtle to exist, the designer's desire. There is no reason a platypus should have a beak, except for the reason of God wanting to falsify evolution. There is no reason a pelican-spider should have a pelican-shaped head. It is absurd, but it is designer-FUN. 

 

All of these things prove creativity, even playful creativity, IMHO.

 

Ever wondered what my baba-heads are, Enoch? They are small clay-balls I have leftover when I have finished making my toys. I make and sell toys and when I have a small piece of clay leftover, I make a baba-head, because I reason thus, playfully; "there is room left for a baba-head". Of course there is, and let's face it, this is what God thought when He thought of a Platypus, He must have said; "well I'm done creating for the day but there is still space enough for a platypus, just for fun"

 

 

[mrchopper 6]

"(Yes, since I know what, "homoplastic" means I'm hardly going to have trouble understanding what "homologous" means am I? Homoplastic is an analogous morphology, such as a wing of a bat and bird but their bones would be homologous. Don't patronise me Chopper, on my worst day I am smarter than you on your best day.) I know and understand evolution more than you, and I have a quiz for any evolutionist that doubts this, which I will be only too pleased to test you with if you patronise me further)"

 

Not sure how i did that exactly but you seem to feel strongly enough about this so ok...i question that you do know and understand evolution more than me too. So if you have a quiz go ahead...

 

"What are the "plenty of ways to determine whether something is convergent?" Prove your statement. As far as I can see, you only have one way - that it can't be a homology as it doesn't fit within the divergence-story, so then the answer has to be that it is convergent-evolution, the absurd 100% belief-by-faith proposal that somehow evolution hit the jackpot twice. If it's falsifiable show me how, answer the question - how can I falsify the notion that a bat, whale and oil-bird all "evolved" homoplastic echolocation. You don't have an answer because there simply isn't a way."

 

The echolocation system isn't even the best example to use. Consider eyes, which have evolved on multiple occasions. Since not all bats use echolocation, and since not all birds do either, no one in any genuine attempt to develop a phylogeny would consider echolocation the best characteristic to use, since it obviously is inclusive of relatively few species, and flies in the face of the wide range of other characteristics that are shared within bats, within birds etc. This is why your depiction of evolution fails mike. It lasts as long as someone doesnt think about it in more detail.

 

There are apparently very few evolutionary solutions to echolocation in vertebrates.

 

"How can you know the cause is evolution? By showing something that has the same design this means that logically this proves it can have nothing to do with evolution. Look at what you written, "evolutionary solution" LOL! But what makes it, "evolutionary", when we look at echolocation, the correct description is sophisticated intelligent design, according to all of the evidence of the incredible anatomy."

 

Because if the trait in question is not shared across all of the group, but other traits are, it cannot be due to ancestry, especially if the individuals are physically and genetically most similar to members without the trait. This is because the genome is apparently a reliable record of one's ancestry.....

 

"Talk about a question-begging-epithet, that is a HOWLER, it is like me saying, "and we can see that the bone has the same Christian solution".

 

Why, "evolutionary" How can I falsify that? Nobody has ever shown even once that evolution can come up with the same solution in two different places, it is nothing more than a belief, considering you haven't shown it can come up with it the first time. It is unfalsifiable flushbunkem just like I said, Sir. 

 

Show me how I can falisfy your statement that it was an, "evolutionary solution"? There is absolutely no way to falsify that, at all,and you know it. Otherwise tell me - how could I show that echolocation did not happen by a stroke of astronomical odds whereby evolution hit the nail on the head several times? You say it as though it is 100% proven, or 100% fact - that means you must be able to show me how that is proven - I though there was no proof in science, so then why are you dogmatic about this?"

 

Well a simple way of falsifying it Mike would be if echolocating bats or oil birds were phylogenetically more related to whales then they are to other bats or birds? Then there would be no possibility of the trait having evolved independently.  

This would be consistent with a system where a cosmic designer has done whatever the heck he wanted to, and left enough to justify a piecemeal and cherry-picked "common design" hypothesis to boot. 

 

"Utter nonsense, the argument from design existed before evolution was even invented by Darwin. You could apply the same test to it then as you can now. It is not up for dispute that an eyeball is constructed specifically to see, it always was, and it never had anything to do with evolution.

 

My particular evaluation of design, is totally objective, as to conclude whether something is designed, the only way you can know is by looking at what makes designs, designed. Looking at things we all agree are animated designs like lifeforms. That is the only way to find out. It is deductive, evolution itself doesn't come into the matter and is  extraneous to the logic of the evaluation. "

 

Yes design is the oldest and least demanding of any argument in favour of god. I meant "ID", which is purely a response to evolution and is creationism in disguise.

 

"You've gave an opinion, I have given a syllogism which pretty much proves that ID is factual in nature, I have explained it several times and you can't show how it is wrong, you also can't show how evolution would not break the law of non-contradiction given the field of biomimetics deductively proves that the intelligent design in nature is superior to our own via Reductio-Ad-Absurdum, a logical proof.

 

Simply repeating your opinions is nothing more than an ad nauseam fallacy, when I have already disproven your claims several times. Now you are just repeating your old opinions because you have less of a chance of refuting me than a 3 legged horse has of winning the grand national.

 

Since we know that you don't even know what a syllogism is, and how it works, can you show us how the following syllogism is wrong please:

 

Every element that makes a human makes a human. (X is X) Law of identity

Bob has all the elements that make a human a human

Therefore Bob is a human.

 

As I have proven, this can be falsified easily, all you have to do is show that the conclusion does not follow and is therefore a non-sequitur, or that the premises are false.

 

Mr C, all of your arguments could be adequately described as rhetorical gibberish, is it my fault you haven't the smarts to know why? At the very least you should have gathered by now that my evaluation of what makes something designed, doesn't actually have ANYTHING to do with evolution, every step of that evaluation is logically provably correct. In each step, to which you cannot refute any of it, you can only offer opinionated gibberish which does not refute my claim. Unfortunately you don't have any proclivity to understand logical reasoning which is why you are unable to see why your objections are inconsequential sophistry.

 

Step one. How can we determine what makes something designed? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be designed, designed. (Mike this is clearly wrong, how can this be true? Lol!!!!)

 

Is step one "true"? Well, let's show an equal logical analogy:

How can we determine what makes a human, human? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be human, human. (human DNA, brain, skin, anatomy....etc) (Mike, this is terribly wrong, and clearly false. LOl!!!!)

 

Thus far, can you see this is having anything to do with evolution-gaps? (Grow a brain mrC! This is 100% objectively logical and has NOTHING to do with your FALSE assertions that it is a gap-filler for evolution)

 

Step 2: If something now has all of the elements we observe a design to has, then logically it's designed.

If something has all the elements of a human , then it's human.

(Mike, how can a person be human if he has all of the elemetns of a human, this is insanity, Mike!) LOL!!

 

MrC, when are you going to learn, you have to prove what you are saying in a debate or provide some backing for your assertions - as you can see by those steps, it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for it to be wrong that the way to determine if something is X, is by it's identity, because that is what makes it X!)

 

Mr C there is no way around the correctness of my syllogism, which is why you had to argue that logic itself must break down. REALITY simply does not show evolution, it shows intelligent design, and you can either accept reality or reject it and believe in a false theory but know this, in the totality of my knowledge I am telling you that all of the reasonings you have provided against my position have not even put a dent in the fender. I say that with all sincerity, you have lost this debate, miserably because you cannot show how it is wrong as to how to decide if something qualified as design. Just admit you can't win, try honesty for a change, just say this; "your syllogism is not breakable Mike, it is clearly correct, and that means that intelligent design is clearly what we see and this doesn't favour evolution and I can see that but I am going to believe by faith in evolution, that somehow evolution done it, even though it doesn't have any intelligence".

 

That would be the only honest thing to say at this stage, it is clear that you can't win this debate.

 

Mike perhaps a practical example might help...

 

During my PhD i set up an experiment to explore the possible influence of a plant hormone called jasmonic acid on the triggering of a defense response in plants. I set up a factorial experiment to test this, with some plants treated with and some treatments without jasmonic acid. I then compared the response of the plants from the catagories to stress. I found that there was a difference in the plants treated with jasmonic acid, that they had less injury than plants without it. So, you might say that the hypothesis was validated, and that jasmonic acid is involved in the reaction. - Except, the experiment was not properly designed to show that jasmonic acid is involved, it showed that excess jasmonic acid can cause a similar effect. Such a conclusion is unwarranted at this time. To positively demonstrate that jasmonic acid is involved, i would now have to repeat the experiment with mutants without the ability (or reduced ability) to synthesise their own jasmonic acid. Only then can the correct conclusion be drawn up that jasmonic acid may or may not produce the effect seen.

 

In exactly the same way mike, you would have to positively demonstrate that ID interacts with biology, and that it causes the effect seen. Otherwise, it's just philosophy and "logic" and may or may not have any real importance at all. 

[gilbo12345 860]

well obviously well have to. ....don't think i'm being that unreasonable mike:

 

a) elements of apparent design - check

possibility of having been designed - check

c) causal link between a designer and biology - to date, no such link

 

I think it is highly ironic for you to be asking for a "causal link"... When your own assumptions and beliefs have none anyway...

 

So this is another example of "atheist double standards"... Ok no worries

 

 

 

"What are the "plenty of ways to determine whether something is convergent?" Prove your statement. As far as I can see, you only have one way - that it can't be a homology as it doesn't fit within the divergence-story, so then the answer has to be that it is convergent-evolution, the absurd 100% belief-by-faith proposal that somehow evolution hit the jackpot twice. If it's falsifiable show me how, answer the question - how can I falsify the notion that a bat, whale and oil-bird all "evolved" homoplastic echolocation. You don't have an answer because there simply isn't a way."

 

The echolocation system isn't even the best example to use. Consider eyes, which have evolved on multiple occasions. Since not all bats use echolocation, and since not all birds do either, no one in any genuine attempt to develop a phylogeny would consider echolocation the best characteristic to use, since it obviously is inclusive of relatively few species, and flies in the face of the wide range of other characteristics that are shared within bats, within birds etc. This is why your depiction of evolution fails mike. It lasts as long as someone doesnt think about it in more detail.

 

There are apparently very few evolutionary solutions to echolocation in vertebrates.

Um... You never answered the question Mr C...

 

How do you determine which similarities are due to ancestry and which are convergent?

 

On what basis do you make this determination? I would have to agree with Mike in that it seems the only method you have of determining whether something is "ancestral" is whether it fits with your evolution story...

 

Do you have some form of scientific methodology or is this based merely what you believe?

 

 

 

"How can you know the cause is evolution? By showing something that has the same design this means that logically this proves it can have nothing to do with evolution. Look at what you written, "evolutionary solution" LOL! But what makes it, "evolutionary", when we look at echolocation, the correct description is sophisticated intelligent design, according to all of the evidence of the incredible anatomy."

 

Because if the trait in question is not shared across all of the group, but other traits are, it cannot be due to ancestry, especially if the individuals are physically and genetically most similar to members without the trait. This is because the genome is apparently a reliable record of one's ancestry.....

 

So you assume that somehow the exact same gene "evolved" by a random process TWICE in totally different organisms? My what a faith you have sir... Do you have any evidence to support this?

 

Then again, you were asked to provide your evidence, ("how do you know?") NOT provide more assumptions.

 

 

 

"Talk about a question-begging-epithet, that is a HOWLER, it is like me saying, "and we can see that the bone has the same Christian solution".

 

Why, "evolutionary" How can I falsify that? Nobody has ever shown even once that evolution can come up with the same solution in two different places, it is nothing more than a belief, considering you haven't shown it can come up with it the first time. It is unfalsifiable flushbunkem just like I said, Sir. 

 

Show me how I can falisfy your statement that it was an, "evolutionary solution"? There is absolutely no way to falsify that, at all,and you know it. Otherwise tell me - how could I show that echolocation did not happen by a stroke of astronomical odds whereby evolution hit the nail on the head several times? You say it as though it is 100% proven, or 100% fact - that means you must be able to show me how that is proven - I though there was no proof in science, so then why are you dogmatic about this?"

 

Well a simple way of falsifying it Mike would be if echolocating bats or oil birds were phylogenetically more related to whales then they are to other bats or birds? Then there would be no possibility of the trait having evolved independently.  

This would be consistent with a system where a cosmic designer has done whatever the heck he wanted to, and left enough to justify a piecemeal and cherry-picked "common design" hypothesis to boot. 

 

Then you'd just say that they are related and that the traits are due to ancestry.... Either way evolutionists can "explain" anything, and you know what they say about a hypothesis that explains everything... Don't you?

 

Ordinarily the fact that similar traits exist which are not due to ancestry, falsifies your assumption that "similarities = ancestry"... So convergence actually falsifies evolution, however since evolutionists have slapped the label of "evolution" to convergence it is now deemed a "part" of the all-encompassing paradigm that is "evolution" rather than being an observation that falsifies one of the assumptions of evolutionists....

 

This is called creating ad hoc hypotheses to save a debunked idea

 

 

 

Also I believe the Platypus is the epitome of God wanting to do whatever He wanted to do, as it contains similarities with reptiles, mammals, ducks and fish...

 

 

 

Step one. How can we determine what makes something designed? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be designed, designed. (Mike this is clearly wrong, how can this be true? Lol!!!!)

 

Is step one "true"? Well, let's show an equal logical analogy:

How can we determine what makes a human, human? By evaluating what makes something we already know to be human, human. (human DNA, brain, skin, anatomy....etc) (Mike, this is terribly wrong, and clearly false. LOl!!!!)

 

Thus far, can you see this is having anything to do with evolution-gaps? (Grow a brain mrC! This is 100% objectively logical and has NOTHING to do with your FALSE assertions that it is a gap-filler for evolution)

 

Step 2: If something now has all of the elements we observe a design to has, then logically it's designed.

If something has all the elements of a human , then it's human.

(Mike, how can a person be human if he has all of the elemetns of a human, this is insanity, Mike!) LOL!!

 

1- How is determining aspects of design from something designed incorrect?

 

Its much better than assuming evolution, since at least Mike is working from a position of knowledge (the item he studies for the aspects of design is KNOWN to be designed), rather than a position of assumption-based opinion, such as yours...

 

2- How is this wrong? You NEED to support your assertions.

 

3- Wha? Again, support your assertions.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

I'm so sorry Gilbo, thos purple statements were my own inventions, MrC didn't actually say the things in purple I just created a devil's advocate of someone denying the obvious. I should have made that more clear, I admit it looks like he said it but he actually didn't.

 

I was trying to fabricate this kind of scenario:

 

"If we add two units that will give us four, so then if we add four and four this should give us eight."

"Mike, that's ridiculous, logic is breaking down, science overrides this rhetorical logic you are using."

 

My apologies for the cock up - the purple highlighted texts were also my own sarcasm, because those steps of design are so blatant, and I have made them so blatant, that even a four year old could understand there is no possibility of those steps being, "wrong" because I have simplified it to the point that it is almost ludicrous to even state the argument.

 

To highlight my point - re-read the syllogism, and when you read it, as you can see it is a little bit like this type of reasoning; "one unit add one unit is two units".

 

I mean the syllogism is so blatantly true that it even SOUNDS silly, if someone came up to you in the street and said it to you, your natural reaction would probably be this; "HUH? Dude, why are you stating the obvious?"

 

Here is is again:

 

Every element that makes something human makes it human. (so this premise is that a human is a human. X is X) (huh?)

If you have everything that makes you human, then you are human. (wow, that's right up there with, "a male is a male, and a female is a female, thanks so much for telling me this.)

 

So this is directly equatable to;

 

Every element of design makes something designed.

X has every element of design

therefore X is designed.

 

Of course I am telling you all of this Gilbo but I can tell you don't need it telling to you, but I thought I was explain it again in the hope that MrC can come to discover the blatant OBVIOUSNESS of the reality of the argument.

 

I guess he won't but then what does that tell us? It tells me that atheists will deny absurdly obvious reality if it doesn't agree with their ideology. So much for their position being about, "logic".

 

I think I'll bow out of this thread now, it is giving me a backache and neckache, I am sick of the sound of my own words. Lol

 

And that platypus is the cutest little creature I've ever seen, I just want to hug it. haha. What a brilliant little baba, it's like a barrel of fur with a beak.

[mrchopper 6]

 

 

 

"Every element that makes something human makes it human. (so this premise is that a human is a human. X is X) (huh?) 

If you have everything that makes you human, then you are human. (wow, that's right up there with, "a male is a male, and a female is a female, thanks so much for telling me this.) 

 

So this is directly equatable to;

 

Every element of design makes something designed.

X has every element of design

therefore X is designed."

 

Apologies for formatting again. Assuming that this very literal premise is actually valid, you have yet to demonstrate that anything in biology is designed, and therefore possesses the elements of being designed. A definition of "design", and "intelligence", would also be a bonus.

 

You have to demonstrate that design has/does take place, otherwise, as per my own example, you cannot actually know either way, which makes ID philosophy, evidenced purely by the stuff evolution cannot explain, and not actually a scientific explanation in its own right.

 

"I guess he won't but then what does that tell us? It tells me that atheists will deny absurdly obvious reality if it doesn't agree with their ideology. So much for their position being about, "logic".  ;)"

 

Its not obvious reality! Its also not ideology.

 

If you had a test tube full of organic molecules and heated them to demonstrate the formation of life, they might not spontaneously form life, but that doesn't automatically support an alternative hypothesis....You have to show that an alternative mechanism actually takes place, otherwise it could just be the wrong mix of chemicals or the wrong temperature, for all you know.

 

ID is perfectly evidenced by by the failures of other hypotheses, which is the scientific equivalent of playing with a handicap. 

 

Its a false dichotomy.

 

For a more mundane example, knowing that my dog didn't eat my pie doesn't prove by default that my next door neighbour did eat it.

 

Is that really unreasonable?

[Enoch 2021 412]

 

 

mr. PhD Biology chopper, for the 37th TIME !!! ...What is the "Scientific" theory of evolution.....? 

 

 

Thanks in advance for answering.

[gilbo12345 860]

I'm so sorry Gilbo, thos purple statements were my own inventions, MrC didn't actually say the things in purple I just created a devil's advocate of someone denying the obvious. I should have made that more clear, I admit it looks like he said it but he actually didn't.

 

I was trying to fabricate this kind of scenario:

 

"If we add two units that will give us four, so then if we add four and four this should give us eight."

"Mike, that's ridiculous, logic is breaking down, science overrides this rhetorical logic you are using."

 

My apologies for the cock up - the purple highlighted texts were also my own sarcasm, because those steps of design are so blatant, and I have made them so blatant, that even a four year old could understand there is no possibility of those steps being, "wrong" because I have simplified it to the point that it is almost ludicrous to even state the argument.

 

To highlight my point - re-read the syllogism, and when you read it, as you can see it is a little bit like this type of reasoning; "one unit add one unit is two units".

 

I mean the syllogism is so blatantly true that it even SOUNDS silly, if someone came up to you in the street and said it to you, your natural reaction would probably be this; "HUH? Dude, why are you stating the obvious?"

 

Here is is again:

 

Every element that makes something human makes it human. (so this premise is that a human is a human. X is X) (huh?)

If you have everything that makes you human, then you are human. (wow, that's right up there with, "a male is a male, and a female is a female, thanks so much for telling me this.)

 

So this is directly equatable to;

 

Every element of design makes something designed.

X has every element of design

therefore X is designed.

 

Of course I am telling you all of this Gilbo but I can tell you don't need it telling to you, but I thought I was explain it again in the hope that MrC can come to discover the blatant OBVIOUSNESS of the reality of the argument.

 

I guess he won't but then what does that tell us? It tells me that atheists will deny absurdly obvious reality if it doesn't agree with their ideology. So much for their position being about, "logic".

 

I think I'll bow out of this thread now, it is giving me a backache and neckache, I am sick of the sound of my own words. Lol

 

And that platypus is the cutest little creature I've ever seen, I just want to hug it. haha. What a brilliant little baba, it's like a barrel of fur with a beak.

 

Mike you shouldn't apologise for my misunderstanding 

 

And yes the Platypus is pretty cool.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

MrChopper: you have yet to demonstrate that anything in biology is designed,

 

That does it guys, this LIE is causing me to UNCREATE the Mrchopper-troll.

 

Or perhaps we can give MrC the benefit of the doubt and assume he is simply too dumb to understand obvious reality.

 

(On a serious note MrC, sorry if I got a bit grouchy towards you in that long post I made the other day. Secondly, I am not really uncreating you but I do think it is time to agree to disagree.)

 

The problem with, "knowledge" is that you could reasonably ask this; "when do we know something?"

 

In epistemology, usually the definition of knowledge is a JTB, a, "justified, true belief", but because of the Gettier-problem, really this definition of knowledge is probability-based.

 

So for example, I look at my watch and it says 3 oclock and it seems like about that time of the afternoon, I then look at a clock five minutes later and it says 3.05, then ten minutes later I look at yet another clock and it says 3.15.

 

TECHNICALLY speaking, YES - I don't know that it is 3.15pm, because all three time-pieces could have stopped on those times assuming I didn't pay attention to the seconds-hand, and it could be an incredible coincidence, but probability-wise, I have a justified-true--belief that it is 3.15pm. You could say that the chances are that it is 3.15pm.

 

In regards to intelligent design, we have to ask the question; "where is the intelligence displayed within the design?" Secondly we then have to ask; "can intelligence be displayed in a design without it being designed?" The second question implies a contradiction.

 

When we look at things we agree are designed such as the differential in a car, how do we FIND the intelligence? There is only one way, if the designer is not presented to us - we find the intelligence by observing how the problem is solved.

 

That is to say, we can see by the relationship of the gear-cogs in a differential, that they are specifically arranged so that it allows both wheels to spin at a different speed, hence the term, "differential" (for more information, ask Mike Summers).

 

So then, that is what, "gives the game away" so to speak. Because we can literally "SEE" the clever idea, in action.

 

So then, we must look for the same in an eyeball. When we look at how the cornea is made, to be transparent, we can see there are several ingenius ways that the problem of transparency through thick skin, is solved. Similarly, when we wonder how a Giraffe does not drown it's brain in it's own blood when stooping for a drink or feint when rising to full height, we can see there is a spongey-structure of blood-vessels in the brain, and ingenius solution to the problem.

 

So technically you could say that strictly technically I don't fully "know" it's designed. But you could say that about anything in life but we still pretty much reasonably conclude that we, "know". If we only "don't know" because of a rare improbable outcome, then let's face it, 99.9999999% of the time we are going to "know" rather than coming across the improbable scenario such as the three clocks stopping. Chances are if you check three time-pieces, then you know the time. It seems pedantic to say, "technically you don't know". That seems like a somewhat moot point to me.

 

That's all from me.

[mrchopper 6]

no offence taken Mike,

 

still disagree with you. If one of your gripes with evolution is that we haven't experimentally validated the evolution of new kinds of organisms, you can hardly turn around and say that ID doesn't have to be demonstrated, which is basically what you are arguing. Apparent design is obvious everywhere, which is exactly the position people took before we understood that organisms change and biological variation selected for. It doesn't make sense to have a system which is half-way between. If you are happy with natural selection and speciation, but think a designer is necessary to explain larger differences or more complex structures, this defines some of the characteristics of the designer, and means we should in theory be able to test this mechanism.....?

[Enoch 2021 412]

If one of your gripes with evolution is that we... 

 

Actually, the only "Gripe" is what evolution actually "IS" ??

 

So, mr PhD Biology chopper, lift the "FOG" for us; for the 38th TIME!!!! ....Define the "SCIENTIFIC" theory of evolution....?

 

 

Thanks for answering in advance.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

MrC, your style is the ad-nauseam style of repeating and repeating and repeating arguments. If you can't find a rebuttal you repeat the original argument. (ad nauseam fallacy).

 

I went through how deductive reason proves that something can't ONLY have an appearance of design AND also be designed. You can have something designed which appears to be, but in that scenario it is logically MOOT that it appears to be.

 

For example, if I appear to have a football, we examine it and it is a football, is it useful to then say, "it appears to be a football!" Why would we say that, when we now know it is a football?

 

I gave an explanation with the example of a football that was actually a ball of lead and the example of the waxwork that appeared to be human but wasn't.

 

If something only appears to be designed then it doesn't have an actual GOAL, the individual parts of the system aren't really specifically arranged, conducive to that goal. There isn't really contingency planning, why? Because these are the things that make something intelligently designed, so if X has those elements then it actually is not just appearing to be designed but also is designed.

 

You can't say that a car or camera is just an, "appearance" of design, nor a lifeform, because we can evaluate them and see that they are both actually in actual fact, designed, since both an eyeball and a camera have all parts conducive to the goal of sight/filming, (specified complexity and apobetics)

 

I have disproven the evolutionist argument of an, "appearance of design" many times over, and it is unfair for you to TROLL it out all over again knowing I have debunked it utterly and completely.

 

The elements of intelligent design make something intelligently designed.

X has all of the elements of intelligent design.

X is intelligently designed.

X is only appearing to be designed. (non-sequitur AND a contradiction)

 

The elements of a football make something a football.

X has all the elements of a footbal

X is a football.

X is only appearing to be a football. (non-sequitur AND a contradiction)

 

[mrchopper 6]

"I have disproven the evolutionist argument of an, "appearance of design" many times over, and it is unfair for you to TROLL it out all over again knowing I have debunked it utterly and completely.

 

The elements of intelligent design make something intelligently designed.

X has all of the elements of intelligent design.

X is intelligently designed.

X is only appearing to be designed. (non-sequitur AND a contradiction)"

 

You've not done anything of the sort Mike but anyway..

Since you haven't defined "intelligence" or "design" we must trust you that this premise is valid. 

 

"

 

The elements of a football make something a football.

X has all the elements of a footbal

X is a football.

X is only appearing to be a football. (non-sequitur AND a contradiction)

 

:)"

 

But a football is a human artifact, distinguishable from the objects encountered in a natural background by the method of deduction, whereas biology is not one, it is a part of the natural background. Hence why your argument reduces to nothing more than an analogy. One also requires no intrinsic knowledge of biology to make your argument.

[gilbo12345 860]

 

"I have disproven the evolutionist argument of an, "appearance of design" many times over, and it is unfair for you to TROLL it out all over again knowing I have debunked it utterly and completely.

 

The elements of intelligent design make something intelligently designed.

X has all of the elements of intelligent design.

X is intelligently designed.

X is only appearing to be designed. (non-sequitur AND a contradiction)"

 

You've not done anything of the sort Mike but anyway..

Since you haven't defined "intelligence" or "design" we must trust you that this premise is valid. 

 

"

 

The elements of a football make something a football.

X has all the elements of a footbal

X is a football.

X is only appearing to be a football. (non-sequitur AND a contradiction)

 

:)"

 

But a football is a human artifact, distinguishable from the objects encountered in a natural background by the method of deduction, whereas biology is not one, it is a part of the natural background. Hence why your argument reduces to nothing more than an analogy. One also requires no intrinsic knowledge of biology to make your argument.

 

 

All Mr C has done is deem life a part of "the natural background" and thus cannot be designed... Is this the only (attempt at an) argument evolutionists can give? 

 

'Because I deem life (DNA etc) natural and not design it isn't design'.... Seriously!

 

The problem here is that DNA and the complexity of life cannot be logically explained without reference to some form of designer. Sure an evolutionist can assume "evolution did it", however in order for evolution to actually "do it" it would need to defy the prerogatives of what a natural process is.

 

For example, the creation of the information in DNA requires understanding which is something that cannot be accounted for by a natural non-coherent process...

[mike the wiz 1,210]

His points are irrelevant, Gilbo - I don't feel compelled to defend my own anymore because he only states his arguments, he doesn't prove his position or doesn't seem to know what when you claim something or counter-claim something, you have to give reasons for why the readers should accept your statements. Just saying, "you're wrong" or, "you haven't done X", isn't even an argument.

 

We have discussed with before Gilbo, when we agreed that a common tactic they seem to employ is to assume that the burden of proof is upon us,  ALWAYS - even if they say, "you are wrong" they then employ the tactic of watching you explain how you are right, with 1000 words, then they will say something else, like, "that is not the case you haven't done X", then they will wait and watch you give another 1000 words of defense.

 

Notice that they are never required to support any of their own claims/counter-claims?

 

My hope is that the readers can see this, and can see that I have given a proper explanation of my arguments, and they will see that those arguments have not really even been challenged, only purported to be challenged by making statements such as, "no you havn't proven X".

 

 

 

(It's not enough to claim I am wrong in a fair debate MrC, and your style is to simply SAY I am wrong. That is not a rebuttal. You have to show how my reasoning is actually wrong, not just give an opinion that it is.)

[Mike Summers 454]

No doubt that many of you here are aware that within the fins of all cetaceans, they have a skeletal hand complete with four to five digits. My question is to Young Earthers and is very simple: why do they have this? What would the purpose be in designing fingers that would never be used?

 

For a picture of a whale "hand," I included this link: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/05/whale-hands.html

 

Evolutionists seems to have gone assumption crazy! Or is it just me becoming more aware of it? I think the latter and my bros have educated me and sensitized me to evo's many assumptions.

 

So, isn't it suppose to be that whales evolved from a land animal such as a cows which have hoofs? And in a chicken or egg type scenario aren't you assuming fingers came first? Maybe they are just bones to support the flesh and muscle around them? Are you assuming they evolved from hands with fingers (hoofs)?

 

Do fins not have a function? Do the bones in the fin not aid in rigidity and articulation? Where did you get the idea that only hands can use bones? Me thinks you are assuming.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=far+side+boneless+chicken+ranch&espv=2&biw=1478&bih=900&tbm=isch&imgil=lWQTDEl4aQ2nHM%253A%253BtnXaoQlxLzBLlM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fcrayfisher.wordpress.com%25252F2013%25252F01%25252F02%25252Fel-foldo-grande%25252Fboneless-chicken-ranch-far-side-247x300%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=lWQTDEl4aQ2nHM%253A%252CtnXaoQlxLzBLlM%252C_&dpr=0.67&ved=0CC0QyjdqFQoTCNO84IfThcgCFUUnHgod4v8ATA&ei=Rqv-VdOBLcXOeOL_g-AE&usg=__XKbe5ZgeKZIQU6E0vU_uP1Xk6ek%3D#imgrc=sTlTY2pWtLI9vM%3A&usg=__XKbe5ZgeKZIQU6E0vU_uP1Xk6ek%3D

 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Good point Mike. In fact I have shown in this diagram I drawn, that Ichthyosaurs would have inherited the same "fingers" as whales and dolphins/manatees/dugongs. But in fact an Ichthyosaur has very strange paddle-like digits. 

 

If evolution was true it seems reasonable for us to assume that Ichthyosaurs would have to make do with "fingers" but if we expect a designer God to give it more paddle-like fine-bones because it was a slow paddler, then this would explain it. 

 

so if it was evolution we would expect both Ichthyosaur/whale to have "hand-like" finger-bones, but if it is intelligent design we would expect the correct design for both the Ichthyo and the whale (different designs). As you can see they have very different designs despite both having an alleged terrestrial progenitor. 

 

 

(I'll take a break from the forums now for a time, and let some other folk discuss it.)